SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 671

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Jayanti Medhi, W/o. Late Paresh Medhi – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And The Secy. To The Govt. Of Assam And Ors. – Respondents 
WP(C) No.5901 Of 2021
Decided On : 05-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. Bhuyan, Mr N. Islam, Advocate
For the Respondent: GA, Assam, Mr. J.K. Goswami (R-5),SC, PWD

Compassionate appointments are exceptions meant for immediate relief and not vested rights; delays undermine their purpose.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Compassionate appointment - Rejection of petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment on grounds of delay and lack of immediate financial crisis - The petitioner's husband died on 29.02.2016, and the rejection occurred on 31.12.2018, with the writ petition filed in 2021 - The court emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions meant for immediate relief and not vested rights, as established in State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari (2023) SCC Online SC 219. (Paras 1, 10, 12, 14)

(B) Delay - The court noted that the delay of over 9 years in seeking compassionate appointment dilutes the sense of immediacy required for such claims, as per the principles laid down in the aforementioned case. (Paras 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of her application for compassionate appointment after her husband's death while in service. The application was made within the prescribed time, but the rejection was based on the delay and the lack of urgency in the claim.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay of over 9 years undermined the purpose of compassionate appointments, which are intended for immediate relief.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the rejection based on delay and whether the petitioner faced an immediate financial crisis.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compassionate appointments are not vested rights and must be claimed promptly to address immediate financial needs, as reiterated in the Supreme Court's ruling.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Judgment :

(SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.)

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging, inter alia the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground which has been done by the State Level Committee (hereinafter SLC) in its meeting dated 31.12.2018.

2. The projected case of the petitioner, in a nutshell is that her husband, Paresh Medhi, who was working as a Muster Roll Worker in the PWD, had died in harness on 29.02.2016. The petitioner claims that he was also issued an Identity Card No. J/93/12 dated 01.11.1993 and also claims that his services was regularized. The petitioner claims to be eligible had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 23.09.2016 and her case was also considered by the District Level Committee (DLC). Thereafter, the matter was taken by the SLC in its meeting dated 31.12.2018 wherein the case of the petitioner has been rejected. It is this action, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Shri K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri JK Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, PWD.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is contended that the application for compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner within the prescribed time and therefore, the reason assigned that such application was made after one Syed Imanul Ahmed for a single vacancy would be arbitrary. It is also submitted that recommendation of the case of the petitioner by the DLC would establish that the petitioner has a valid claim for such appointment.

5. Per contra, Shri Goswami, learned State Counsel has submitted that the reasons cited for rejecting the case of the petitioner are relevant and germane and therefore, the submission that there is illegality cannot be countenanced. He has also highlighted the aspect of delay in approaching the Court and also the aspect of the claim for any such direction in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent case of State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 219.

6. By endorsing the submission made by the learned State Counsel, Ms. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, PWD has submitted that from the date of death, more than 9 years have passed and at this stage, a claim for appointment on compassionate ground would not be justified.

7. The rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

8. The materials on record make it clear that the death of the husband of the petitioner was on 29.02.2016 and the rejection by the SLC was of December, 2018. The writ petition itself was instituted in the year 2021. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 24.05.2019, the representation was filed, apart from there being nothing on record that the said representation was indeed received by the authorities, from the said date also, there is an unexplained delay of more than two and half years as the writ petition was instituted only on 02.11.2021.

9. There is another aspect of the matter with regard to the very objective of the scheme for compassion appointment. The very objective of the scheme, which is an exception to the general mode of recruitment, is to give immediate succor to a family which has lost its sole breadwinner who was a Government servant and such objective would not survive after a gap of more than 9 years.

10. The law on compassionate appointment has been elaborately explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra). In the said case, almost all the earlier cases on the subject of compassionate appointment have been discussed and the principles have been laid down. It has been reiterated that an appointment on compassionate grou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top